XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:30:21 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:
.
>On 02-July-2014 8:40 AM, BruceS wrote:
>> On 07/01/2014 12:36 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote:
>>
>>> why are you not agnostic. you sound alot more agnostic than atheist.
>>>
>>> Agnostic holds the position that the existence of a god is
>>> unknowable
>>
>> There's the rub. Agnosticism holds that it's not possible to know
>> whether gods exist. I don't buy that. I'm perfectly willing to accept
>> the existence of gods, given objective evidence for their existence.
>> Having not seen any such evidence, I remain without any belief in
>> their existence.
>
>so lets talk about what you do believe then, to be consistent with your
>position of no evidence for God. you believe then that NO prayer has
>ever been answered or ever will be. you believe that NO person ever has
>ever had any spiritual encounter or experience, or ever will. you
>believe there's NO evidence that Jesus ever existed, despite what is
>written in the bible. you believe that NO story in the bible, or any
>other holy book, is true or really happened. you believe that NO
>prophecy has ever been or ever will be fulfilled. you believe there is
>NO creator, and all life and existence must have some other cause or
>origin. you believe there is NO afterlife although you can't prove it.
>you believe that ALL the billions of ppl who believe in God are deluded.
>and so on, and so on. Of course you can and will believe what you like,
>but I as I've said, I believe the claim that there's no evidence for God
>is just silly, and that it takes much more to credulity to believe it
>than to accept that there is evidence, because there clearly is.

    All the things you mentioned above are evidence. Accepting that fact is a
starting line. These people who consider themselves authorities on a topic they
can't consider in any realistic ways, can't get to a number of the starting
lines associated with it.

>the
>more I see atheists wanting to deny there's any evidence for God, the
>more I'm convinced they're simply running scared from the possibility
>that any religious claims may be true.

    There's no doubt they're scared of that.

>I've yet to see any atheist come
>out and say.. "yes, there's plenty of evidence for God, but I simply
>don't want to accept it"

    They also can't say what evidence they think there "should be"....except
for
the stupidly amusing idea that if God exists he "should" regrow lost limbs in 5
seconds. Well, one of them did suggest that if God exists he should give
everyone everything they pray for immediately every time someone asks for
something. Neither of those stupid ideas are the least bit acceptable though,
so
it's still safe to say that they have no idea what evidence they keep
demanding,
where they think it should be, or why they think it should be to God's benefit
to provide whatever it is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)